.44 mag barrel

[pollock28]

Handgun hunting

I'm looking at a .44 mag specifically for hunting and if possible wilderness protection. I would like to keep the barrel as reasonably short as possible without sacrificing too much accuracy. I also plan on shooting iron sight, no scope.

Thanks for the input!

 

[Thernlund]

Longer for better accuracy. Shorter for easier carry.

Considering for a moment that I do not hunt and don't own many revolvers, my suggestion would be no less than 4" and no greater than 6" for barrel length. I'd lean towards 6".


-T.

 

[pollock28]

well right now i \'m looking at the Taurus Tracker 4" and Ruger Redhawk 5.5", any feedback?

 

[theotherwaldo]

Sorry. I won't advise someone to go into the woods and hunt with a short-barrelled gun. My Super Blackhawk's 7 1/2'' is my minimum length.

Hey, typical self-defense distance is 7 yards and under, but hunting ranges are normally above 25 yards, and often 50+. That's too long a range with too little m/v for most loads.

 

[Majic]

With big bore magnums plenty of velocity is generated to make humane kills out to 75 yards with most loads using a short barreled revolver. The major point in using the longer barrels is for the sighting radius. If you can consistently make hits with a 4 inch revolver then there is no reason not to use one.

 

[pollock28]

What is your guys take as far as caliber? Obviously .44 mag will be the popular choice, but are there others you would recomend? I will be mostly hunting deer and then possibly carrying for wilderness protection.

 

[DWFan]

caliber suggestion

No knocks against the .44 Mag; it's an excellent caliber. I'd give a serious look at the .454 Casull, however. The .454 Casull is plenty powerful from any length barrel, but I'd lean toward at least 6 inches. The fact that you can use .45 Colt ammo for target/sub loads in a major selling point too.

 

[pollock28]

I'm fairly new to revolvers, is 454 going to be a really heavy recoil? I'm not a small guy but i've heard its pretty rough? Is it overkill for deer hunting?

 

[DWFan]

Heavy recoil? Yes; but a full-house, heavy bullet .44 Mag load from a 4" barrel is pretty rough, if not rougher. The "Ruger/Contender only" .45 Colt loads will work. You'll need to practice a lot to be accurate with your handgun, so you can also work up to maximum loads as you practice and get accustomed to the recoil level.
No, it isn't overkill for deer.

 

[bearmgc]

I had both the Taurus Tracker and the Ruger Redhawk in 44mag, both bought new. After about 200 rounds of mild factory ammo, the Taurus sometimes would lock up, sometimes wouldn't. Imagine if it hadn't locked up properly in a defense situation? The Redhawk was great, reliable and accurate. But it had a gravely trigger, so I got a trigger job and it really improved my groups. I regret letting that Redhawk go, But I wanted an HK at the time. Now I use a Ruger blackhawk for hunting, and a Ruger Alaskan for woods defense, and love 'em both. 44mag is the most I can handle with castcore ammo, so that's my caliber for them.

 

[nicholst55]

If you plan to hunt with the gun, your state's game regulations may well dictate your minimum barrel length. Check there before you buy.

 

[ElToro]

i have a 4 5/8 and 5 3/4 blackhawk.
also 3, 5, and 6 inch underlugged 29/629 classic.

i thin the 4 5/8inch blackhawk and 5 inch 629 classic handle and balcnce the best. with the ruger, i can shoot monster loads (if i reloaded). with the smith. i can shoot any factory load.

 

[TAB]

whats the min barrel length to hunt where you hunt?

 

[pollock28]

I checked the regs I don't think it ever specifed anything about handguns except caliber. I'm from Minnesota, anybody know for sure?

 

[birddog]

I never found a good compromise. When I need a bear-country backup, I take my 629, four-inch. When I'm hunting, it's either a 6 inch taurus or 8 inch Super Blackhawk.

I feel comfortable at close range with the short 629, but not at hunting distances.

 

[rbmcmjr]

I checked the regs I don't think it ever specifed anything about handguns except caliber. I'm from Minnesota, anybody know for sure?

According to the online law archives for MN, caliber and cartridge length are the issues: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=97B.031

97B.031 USE AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.
Subdivision 1. Firearms and ammunition that may be used to take big game. (a) A
person may take big game with a firearm only if:
(1) the rifle, shotgun, and handgun used is a caliber of at least .23 inches;
(2) the firearm is loaded only with single projectile ammunition;
(3) a projectile used is a caliber of at least .23 inches and has a soft point or is an expanding
bullet type;
(4) the ammunition has a case length of at least 1.285 inches;
(5) the muzzle-loader used is incapable of being loaded at the breech;
(6) the smooth-bore muzzle-loader used is a caliber of at least .45 inches; and
(7) the rifled muzzle-loader used is a caliber of at least .40 inches.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), clause (4), a person may take big game with a ten
millimeter cartridge that is at least 0.95 inches in length, a .45 Winchester Magnum cartridge, a
.50 A. E. (Action Express) handgun cartridge, or a 56-46 Spencer, 56-50 Spencer, or 56-56
Spencer cartridge.

The bold sections were annotated by me.

 

[Erik]

The 4" and 5.5" Ruger Redhawk in either .44 Remington Magnum or .45 Colt will fit your bill. Frankly, if you are new to big bore handgun shooting you should steer clear of anything more powerful than those. They can be had plenty powerful enough, rest assured. The 5.5" version is arguably the "safer" choice for hunting because of the sight radius, as mentioned earlier.

 

[.38 Special]

Five or five-and-a-half inch barrels are an ideal compromise IMO. An awful lot of good work has been done with the four inch barrel, though. Old Elmer would have chuckled at the assertion that bullets from the four incher don't go fast enough to be effective at longer ranges. The difference between 4" and 7.5" is going to be about 150 FPS on average. I'm not going to look that up on the ballistics tables, but I'm willing to bet that, at responsible iron-sighted revolver hunting ranges, it amounts to approximately nothing.

It's also worth noting that longer barrels are not inherently more accurate. They're just easier to shoot accurately due to the longer sight radius. If one wants to pack the four inch gun and be accurate with it, he just has to practice that much more. Recoil does become a bit more unpleasant in the shorter barrel -- well, muzzle blast becomes a lot more obnoxious, anyway -- but most hunting doesn't actually require the full monte anyway. I prefer to download to approximately 1200 FPS from the .44 Magnum, which is a killing load on whitetail and less-than-trophy boar, without as much unpleasantness on the shooter's end.

Were I in the OP's shoes -- and I pretty much am, for that matter -- I would choose a 4" S&W .44 Magnum or Special. Of course, if thousand dollar guns aren't on the menu, that 5.5" Redhawk is one hell of a gun...

Have fun!

 

[Mainsail]

This will take care of the second requirement; I’m not sure about hunting with it though.